THE GREAT ATTACK ON FREEDOM OF SPEECH

Another Democratic U.S. senator has gone on record as supporting the reinstatement of the so-called "Fairness Doctrine," adding, "I feel like that's gonna happen."

Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., told radio host and WND columnist Bill Press yesterday when asked about whether it was time to bring back the so-called "Fairness Doctrine": "I think it's absolutely time to pass a standard. Now, whether it's called the Fairness Standard, whether it's called something else – I absolutely think it's time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves. I mean, our new president has talked rightly about accountability and transparency. You know, that we all have to step up and be responsible. And, I think in this case, there needs to be some accountability and standards put in place."

Asked by Press if she could be counted on to push for hearings in the Senate this year "to bring these (radio station) owners in and hold them accountable," she replied: "I have already had some discussions with colleagues and, you know, I feel like that's gonna happen. Yep."


If you think this cannot happen in our Country with the freedom of speech granted by the First Amendment of Our Constitution. Consider these facts!
"A think tank headed by John Podesta, co-chairman of Obama's transition team, mapped out a strategy in 2007 for clamping down on talk radio using language that has since been parroted by both the Obama campaign and the new administration's White House website.

In June of 2007, Podesta's Center for American Progress released a report titled "The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio," detailing the conservative viewpoint's dominance on the airwaves and proposing steps for leveling the playing field.

"Our conclusion is that the gap between conservative and progressive talk radio is the result of multiple structural problems in the U.S. regulatory system," the report reads, "particularly the complete breakdown of the public trustee concept of broadcast, the elimination of clear public interest requirements for broadcasting, and the relaxation of ownership rules including the requirement of local participation in management."

The report then demonstrates how radio stations owned locally, or operated by female and minority owners, are statistically more likely to carry liberal political talk shows.

Therefore, the report concludes, the answer to getting equal time for "progressives" lies in mandating "localism" and "diversity" without ever needing to mention the "Fairness Doctrine."

To accomplish the strategy, the report recommends legislating local and national caps on ownership of commercial radio stations and demanding radio stations regularly prove to the FCC that they are "operating on behalf of the public interest" to maintain their broadcasting license.

And if stations are unwilling to abide by the FCC's new regulatory standards, the report recommends, they should pay spectrum-use fees directly to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting "with clear mandates to support local news and public affairs programming and to cover controversial and political issues in a fair and balanced manner."

In this way, the report concludes, between $100 million and $250 million could be raised for public radio, which will be compelled to broadcast via the old standards established by the "Fairness Doctrine."

Since the report's release in 2007, the Obama camp has twice gone on record advocating positions identical to Podesta's think tank".

Yes, Conservative Talk Radio has influenced public opinion, Thank God! But the Left has tried to compete with them repeatedly and failed. At present the Laura Ingram show on radio is ranked number 5 in the number of people who listen on a daily basis. The one Liberal talk show host that has survived, is Bill Press. He is ranked as number 96. Of course everyone knows who is number one. Rush Limbaugh, and they do not pay him over 25 million dollars a year because his audience is small!

Ratings are the life blood of radio and television shows, and Liberal talk is boring and not entertaining. That is why italways has failed, and passing laws that force radio stations sounds to me like something that happened in Nazi Germany and Communist Russia, and do WE want that to happen in our country?

Unfortunately the White House website lists on its technology agenda page that the president plans to "encourage diversity in the ownership of broadcast media, promote the development of new media outlets for expression of diverse viewpoints, and clarify the public interest obligations of broadcasters who occupy the nation's spectrum." Bloggers note: Minority and women owned radio stations tend to be Liberal. Thus, a back door way of obtaining the demise of Conservative Talk shows!

The president's position and proposals match the language of his transition co-chair's think tank report almost word-for-word. Source: World Daily Net.com


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DON'T FORGET TO PROTECT OUR COUNTRY WHILE STIMULATING!

“Remember Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a Democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” – John Adams, letter to John Taylor, April 15, 1814

One hundred and ninety years ago one of our founding fathers said that Democracy commits suicide, and from the way Americans have accepted the rash interpretations of the Constitution in the past fifty years. It appears he is right on point!

Our Supreme Courts decisions in Roe vs Wade and the decision allowing the burning of our flag have been just two examples of the way we have allowed our freedoms and morals to degenerate.
Then there is the way we have allowed the horde of illegal aliens to not only cross our borders but to stay here, and the drive to make everything politically correct has furthered the slide down the slippery slope!

Through it all we have up to now been able to remain the Worlds military super power, and by being powerful we have not garnered much love, but we are still free of attacks on our soil since 9/11/01.

Now comes the "change master" and the "spendulus" package that is well over 900 billion dollars at the time I write this blog.
When the public complains that we are spending money we do not have, and will not have for the foreseeable future. The Democrats talk about cutting the expenditures for the military. After all they are about making America the model welfare state that other countries have tried and failed to produce.

Most of the weapons systems that we ask our brave men and women to take into battle are old and rapidly becoming obsolete. Take the F-18 fighter plane. It was put into use by the military in the 1980s after being designed and approved for production in 1976.
F/A-18 Hornets are currently operating in 37 tactical squadrons from air stations world-wide, and from 10 aircraft carriers. They are, or were scheduled to be replace by the F-22, but guess where the Democrats plan to save money?

While the Republicans in Congress have identified the "stimulus" bill as a PORK spending bill, and are trying to rip out the pork. I believe the whole bill should be scrapped and a new bill that includes money to quick start the economy by including tax cuts and help to the "home owners". The favorite target of liberals is the military, and I have enclosed an excerpt from The Patriot Post written by Ollie North for your information about the lack of concern that some Democrats have to keep our military preparedness.

"Additional "savings" have been identified by others on Capitol Hill. Reps. Barney Frank and Barbara Lee have announced that they want to "trim" what they call "Cold War-era" weapons from the 2010 budget. Included in their "cut list" are the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter ($6.1 billion), the F/A-22 Raptor ($4.5 billion), the Marines' V-22 Osprey ($1.3 billion), the DDG-1000 destroyer ($3.5 billion) and the Army's Future Combat Systems ($3.7 billion).

Even though Iran succeeded in putting a satellite in orbit this week -- demonstrating the capability to launch nuclear-tipped ICBMs -- Rep. Frank persists in claiming that ballistic missile defense ($8.9 billion) is on the chopping block, as well, adding, "We don't need all these fancy new weapons."

In an increasingly dangerous world, in the midst of a war and serious global economic woes, this kind of thinking is lunacy. The Obama administration and their liberal allies on Capitol Hill need to set aside their deep-seated, pathological antipathy toward America's military and invest in the defense of this nation.

In the aftermath of the "Daschle Debacle," Mr. Obama acknowledged, "I screwed up." It is now time for him to make the same admission about his efforts to gut our defense budget. Spending more on defense -- not less -- is not only good for our economy but also good for all of us".SOURCE: OLIVER NORTH

OBAMA SHOUTS "FIRE" TO AMERICAN PUBLIC

If you or I shouted fire in a crowded theater we would be arrested! Free speech stops when your speech can cause disaster and panic to the USA population.It is a just and necessary exception to the right of Free Speech. But does that exemption apply to our elected officials? specifically Our President?

Well, President Obama exceeded that standard today, when he essentially called "fire" to get his "spedulus"program passed in the Senate and eventually put a Bill on his desk that would allow him to spend as Susan Collins a Republican Senator from Maine, said would include 800 million dollars!

The President had this to say today to the media" "it is time to stop talking, it is time for actions now". To put emphasis and threats of dire disaster if he does not get his Bill he had this to say.
"This recession might linger for years. Our economy will lose 5 million more jobs. Unemployment will approach double digits. Our nation will sink deeper into a crisis that, at some point, we may not be able to reverse," Obama wrote in the newspaper piece. Source:Associated Press

He wants to spend, at latest count 1.2 trillion dollars,and to begin his march toward Socialism by bankrupting the government he was sworn less than a month ago, to defend and protect!

Despite the fact that polls show that at least 50% of the USA believe that his "stimulus" package will not save the economy. Many Conservative Economists are saying that if passed the "spendulus" program will do just the opposite!

Republican Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C.,introduced an amendment that would have eliminated all the spending and replaced it with a series of tax cuts. It was defeated 61-36.
He tried to save the taxpayers by introducing an amendment that all conservatives believe is the only way we can eliminate the downward spiral of the economy. Not by spending more of the taxpayers money, but by legislating tax cuts that allow Americans to spend their money on what they want, not what Obama wants to start his march to socialism.

If you need any additional information that proves that all but die hard Obamaphiles believe the plan Obama is pushing will cause rapid inflation and devaluation of our money. Just look at the amount of gold being bought by those who have the money to buy the precious metal. Gold speculators predict that by summer the price of gold will be over $1100!
Not since the Carter administration has gold been over $850! And in those years T-_Bonds brought 18.5% interest.
Carter was elected over Gerald Ford in 1976. His tenure was a time of continuing inflation and recession, and it appears to me that Obama will exceed this in less than one month!

AN ARGUMENT FOR THE RIGHT TO LIFE MOVEMENT

IT IS APPARENT THAT THE MORAL ARGUMENT THAT IT IS WRONG TO KILL AN INNOCENT BABY IN HIS/HER MOTHERS WOMB WILL NOT SWAY THE MINDS OF AMERICANS WHO BACK "THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE".

I OFFER ANOTHER MORE PECUNIARY ARGUMENT THAT MIGHT PERSUADE THE PUBLIC AND THEIR ELECTED OFFICIALS.
The facts have been known for years, but in the present Liberal controlled Media, there are not many columnists and pundits who choose to point out the following frightening statistic.

In the USA it is estimated that since Roe vs Wade was decided by the Supreme Court, 15,000,000 abortions have been performed. By killing this many potential wage earners we have decreased the poll of people who could and in most cases would have contributed to the Social Security pool by now.

Government reports indicate that the so called Social Security fund will be insufficient to pay those who are eligible for benefits by 2016!
According to Social Security trustee estimates, around 2016 the amount of Social Security benefits paid will exceed taxes collected. That means one of two things, or both, must happen: Congress will raise taxes and/or slash promised Social Security benefits. Each year the situation will get worse since the number of retirees is predicted to increase relative to the number in the workforce paying taxes. In 1940, there were 42 workers per retiree, in 1950 there were 16, today there are 3 and in 20 or 30 years there will be 2 or fewer workers per retiree.

"Social Security is unsustainable because it is not meeting the first order condition of a Ponzi scheme, namely expanding the pool of suckers. Social Security has been one congressional lie after another since its inception. Here's what a 1936 Social Security pamphlet said: "After the first 3 years -- that is to say, beginning in 1940 -- you will pay, and your employer will pay, 1.5 cents for each dollar you earn, up to $3,000 a year ... beginning in 1943, you will pay 2 cents, and so will your employer, for every dollar you earn for the next 3 years. ... And finally, beginning in 1949, twelve years from now, you and your employer will each pay 3 cents on each dollar you earn, up to $3,000 a year. That is the most you will ever pay." The pamphlet also said, "Beginning November 24, 1936, the United States government will set up a Social Security account for you. ... The checks will come to you as a right."Source: Walter Williams

That's just one more government lie. In Flemming vs Nestor (1960), the U.S. Supreme court held that you have no "accrued property rights" to a Social Security check. That means Congress can do anything it wishes with Social Security. There is little or nothing that can be done to prevent the economic and political chaos that will result from the collapse of Social Security.And spending almost 900 billion dollars on ZObama's "stimulus" budget buster will speed up the race to economic doom.

Today's recipients of Social Security, along with their powerful AARP lobby, represent a powerful political force. Few politicians are willing to risk their careers alienating today's senior citizens for the benefit of Americans who will be eligible after most people in Congress will be dead or retired from office by a younger electorate.

If you are a voter under the age of 50, you should see the killing of unborn babies as a threat not only to your moral sensibilities, but as a threat to your retirement. If the killing continues at the same pace, it will contribute to the one to one ratio that will inevitably happen as more and more people are employed by the Federal government, and less an less are employed by the private sector. The only sector that provides the money in the form of taxes to run the socialised system we are now entering.

When the Social Security program needs the money it is supposed to be able to turn to the government and say, "now, pay up." Since the government won't have any money it will have turn to the taxpayers for hundreds of billions of dollars, just to keep its promises.
"Ultimately their taxes are going to be raised or their benefits will be cut. There is no way to get around it!

AND I THOUGHT WE ELECTED A PRESIDENT NOT A DICTATOR!

IN THE FIRST OF WHAT I BELIEVE WILL BE MANY EXECUTIVE ORDERS GIVEN BY THE 'MESSIA' IN THE OVAL OFFICE. The President is about to direct that those executives that received federal bail out money can only make $500,000 as salary.

Never before has a president interfered in the daily activities of our banks and financial institutions. Closing the banks is a Constitutional authority delegated to the government in times of crisis as did FDR in the 30's.
But dictating the salary of executives in the private sector are not within the control of the president, unless he thinks he is Our dictator!

The job of limiting the pay of executives of private corporations is the duty and responsibility of the Board of Directors and stock holders, not the POTUS!

The president is the leader of the free World, but not the leader of the Free Enterprise system that operates the machine that allows people like Obama to be in the "princely" places like the White House.

The "Obamaphiles" are not satisfied with just limiting the pay of CEOs. They also proposed the following:
The administration will also propose long-term compensation restrictions even for companies that don't receive government assistance.

* Requiring top executives at financial institutions to hold stock for several years before they can cash out.

* Requiring nonbinding "say on pay" resolutions - that is, giving shareholders more say on executive compensation.

- A Treasury-sponsored conference on a long-term overhaul of executive compensation.

Top officials at companies that have received money from the government's Troubled Asset Relief Program already face some compensation limits. But elected officials want to place more caps.

"I do know this: We can't just say, 'Please, please,'" said Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., who has proposed that no employee of an institution that receives money under the $700 billion federal bailout can receive more than $400,000 in total compensation until it pays the money back.
The figure is equivalent to the salary of the president of the United States.

Predictably, the leak of this threatening news has brought an immediate negative reaction from the private sector.
"Compensation experts in the private sector have warned that such an intrusion into the internal decisions of financial institutions could discourage participation in the rescue program and slow down the financial sector's recovery. They also argue that it could set a precedent for government regulation that undermines performance-based pay". Source: MYWAY.com

Even some Republicans see no harm in setting the principals that if government gives you money they can attach rules of operation.
"In ordinary situations where the taxpayers' money is not involved, we shouldn't set executive pay," said Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama, the top Republican on the Senate Banking Committee.
"But where you've got federal money involved, taxpayers' money involved, TARP money involved, and the way they have spent it, with no accountability, is getting close to being criminal."

This principal has been in operation under the cover of affirmative action for years. The rules of employment for companies that employ more than fifty employees have had quotas for all levels of management based upon numbers set by the federal government to ensure that se percentages of minorities and women occupy supervisor positions.
And Medicare has had rules for doctors and hospitals dictated to them for accepting Federal funds, but the "Change That has Come to America" appears to me to be reaching into the heart of the free enterprise system when the President dictates what the maximum can be for CEO's of our banks. What will be next?

Our Constitution details the powers of the President, and essentially they are a follows: The President is the chief executive of the United States, putting him at the head of the executive branch of the government, whose responsibility is to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." To carry out this duty, he is given control of the four million employees of the federal executive branch, including one million active duty personnel in the military. Both the legislative and judicial branches maintain checks and balances on the powers of the President and vice versa.

Various executive and judicial branch appointments are made by Presidents. Up to 6,000 appointments may be made by an incoming President before he takes office and 8,000 more may be made while in office. Ambassadors, judges of the federal court system, members of the Cabinet, and other federal officers, are all appointed by the President with the "advice and consent" of the Senate, granted by a simple majority. Appointments made while the Senate is in recess are temporary and expire at the end of the next session of the Senate. He may also grant pardons and reprieves, as is often done just before the end of a presidential term.

In addition, while the President cannot directly introduce legislation, he can play an important role in shaping it, especially if the President's political party has a majority in one or both houses of Congress. If Congress passes a bill of which the President disapproves, he may veto it; the veto can be overridden only by two-thirds of both houses of Congress, making it substantially more difficult to enact the law.

Perhaps the most important of all presidential powers is command of the armed forces as commander-in-chief. The framers of the Constitution never intended that the president would reach into the private sector and limit the salaries of executives of business even if he uses the excuse that it is in the name of saving the economy!

TWO EVENTS THAT SHOULD BE FRONT PAGE NEWS BUT ARE ABSENT

while Obama MAKES THE ROUNDS OF MAJOR TELEVISION NETWORKS. Actually they come to the White House for his speeches, but you get the point. There are two disturbing events that occurred this week that should be in the minds of all Americans.

Today the Iranians launched a satellite into orbit using a three stage rocket that was constructed with the help of the Russians.
And Communist North Korea is preparing to test a long ranged rocket capable of reaching the United States!

The following are direct quotes from "The New Media. com"
"The launch of Omid (Hope), Iran's first home-made satellite into orbit early Tuesday, Feb. 3, is a breakthrough demonstrating the Islamic Republic has managed to develop long-range, three-stage, solid-fuel ballistic rockets capable of carrying nuclear warheads. Israel and Western officials have been playing down this fast-developing capability while proving helpless to hold back Iran's nuclear weapons program. Omid was launched by the Safir rocket, whereas a previous launching was boosted by a Russian rocket. DEBKAfile's Iranian sources report the new satellite is designed for tracking, research, telecommunications and carries digital measuring instruments. They stress that it is a feather in the hat for Iran's "Military Group" – the team of scientists and technicians working on its clandestine nuclear bomb program. They are clearly moving ahead undisturbed by UN sanctions or technical difficulties toward rapidly finishing work on nuclear warheads for their ballistic rockets. In weekend interviews, International Atomic Energy Agency director Muhammad ElBaradei contributed to the international effort to talk down Tehran's nuclear advances. He admitted Iran was in the process of constructing nuclear weapons despite his agency's monitoring efforts. But in his view it needed another two to five years to attain this objective.

And to emphasize the problem even more, Dave Eberhart of News Max is reporting that: "A panel of experts has concluded that time is dangerously running out for the U.S. to put in place a protective anti-missile umbrella. The biggest threat is Iran, which the panel forecasts will have the A-Bomb this year".

"North Korea is preparing to test fire a long range missile capable of striking the United States, according to media reports in South Korea and Japan this morning. The Yonhap News Agency in Seoul quoted South Korean officials who described satellite image showing a long cylindrical object being transported on a train through the North Korean countryside. The sinister object has been identified as a Taepodong-2, an intercontinental missile with a range of more than 4000 miles, capable of crossing the Pacific and striking targets in Hawaii or Alaska. It is impossible to confirm independently reports from North Korea, one of the world’s most isolated and hard-line dictatorships, where government of information is almost total. But the country is known to have an active missile program, as well as nuclear warheads – although crucially it probably does not have the technology to mount a nuclear device on a long range missile. The unnamed sources quoted by Yonhap said that any test launch was unlikely for at least a month or two. The train appeared to be heading from a missile factory in North Pyongan province in the country’s north-west to a newly constructed launch site on the west coast".

It seems to me that while President Obama "fiddles" with his massive budget busting "stimulus" package, the rest of the "evil empire" is devoting their time, money and energy to prepare weapons that will surround the USA. When Iran, China, Russia and North Korea have the capability of killing tens of thousands of Americans in a Milli-second. They will not have to fire one missile if we are not properly prepared to target and destroy them with nuclear weapons that are targeting their cities.
It is called nuclear deterrence, and unfortunately we elected a President who believes in talk not military preparedness. He even is rumored to be considering calling a halt to the placement of a missile defense system in Poland because of the sabre rattling of the Russians.

While they fight in Congress how to spend money we do not have. The Russians are visiting Cuba and Venezuela with a small fleet of war ships. For all I know they are making agreements with these countries to establish naval bases in our hemisphere in the near future!

Combining this possible threat with the dedicated radical Islamists who are dedicated to bringing terror and damage to US. This is a time to concentrate on spending money to defend ourselves, not spend a trillion dollars to guarantee that the Democrats can build a voter base of government dependents that will guarantee their power for decades to come!

OBAMA USES SAUL ALINSKYS THIRD PRINCIPLE

Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” —Ronald Reagan

REACTING TO THE REPUBLICAN REJECTION (ENMASSE) TO the House version of OBAMA'S BUDGET SPENDING BILL. MASQUERADING AS A STIMULUS PACKAGE.
OBAMA HAD THIS TO SAY ON NBC'S MATT LAUER SHOW;"Mismanagement by the nation’s lending institutions was so extreme that the losses sustained by banks still cannot be calculated and more are likely to fail, President Barack Obama warned. In my opinion he left out the role of Barney Frank and his Committee!

In an interview airing Monday on NBC’s TODAY show, Obama said the nation’s banks were in “very vulnerable positions” because of the reckless risk-taking that led to the meltdown of the financial services sector late last year. The situation he inherited 13 days ago is so bad that “it is likely that the banks have not fully acknowledged all the losses that they’re going to experience,” Obama said in the interview, which was conducted Sunday at the White House.

Stressing that ordinary Americans’ deposits, which are insured by the federal government, would be safeguarded, the president said banks were “going to have to wring out some of these bad assets.”
He forgot his plan to take over all the bad loans by forming a government bank to hold the bad paper!

Inevitably, he told TODAY anchor Matt Lauer, “some banks won’t make it.”

The president’s message appeared to be a shot across the bow of Senate Republicans, who have objected to the $825 billion bailout of the financial system that was approved last week by the House. Leading Republican senators said they would oppose the bill unless there were major changes, echoing the concerns of their counterparts in the House, none of whom voted for the legislation.

This is classic Saul Alinsky! His primer for Radicals lists as number three of his principles: "A threat is more terrifying than the thing itself"! The "thing" in this instance is the threat of banks failing as they did in the Great Depression!

Once again OUR new President has shown me that he learned his lessons well during his formative years in the city of Chicago.
In Chicago the activists of is time called Mr. Alinsky the "jesus"
of community organization/ Source: Bio. of Jack Mendelson

And while Obama is giving scare tactics speeches to "beg" Americans to back his spending Bill. He has appeared on all major networks to try to scare the people into doing what most people are resisting, commit economic suicide! Congresswoman Sheila Jackson (D-Tex.)has proposed a bill that would increase the number of legal immigrants from 480,000 family visas to 960,000.

"Chain migration is the primary mechanism that has caused legal immigration in this country to quadruple from about 250,000 per year in the 1950s and 1960s to more than one million a year since 1990. As such, it is one of the chief culprits in America's current record-breaking population boom and all the attendant sprawl, congestion, school overcrowding, and other impacts that reduce American's quality of life". Source:Numbers USA

H.R.264 (Save America Comprehensive Immigration Act of 2009) - would double the number of family-based visas from 480,000 a year to 960,000 a year. In addition, this legislation would make a number of technical changes to family-based visas that would further chain migration. And in my opinion will contribute to deepening the economic drain on the U.S. Treasury, with the incumbent taxes that accompany the rapidly growing number of goods and services that new immigrants who are here legally are entitled to.

AMERICANS WAKE UP! WE HAVE A LEFTIST IN THE OVAL OFFICE WHO WANTS TO CREATE A BROADER BASE OF VOTERS WHO ARE DEPENDENT ON THE GOVERNMENT FOR THEIR LIVELY HOOD, AND WILL SECURE THE "change" THAT OBAMA INTENDS TO MAKE. CONVERTING OUR GOVERNMENT TO SOCIALISM!!

Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.

It appears to me that the United States Congress is concentrating on the economic slow down at the detriment of all other issues.

Conservatives outside of the "Beltway" wonder why the Congress and the President is avoiding the predictable crisis coming to the big three entitlement programs -- Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

Our new president's avowed determination to confront the economic crisis has been significantly devoid of concern for entitlements.

Such issues as the Social Security payroll tax, which Conservatives would cut for several years from 12.4 percent to 8 percent since the punitive tax now suppresses job creation. Presently the "SS" tax is raising more revenue than Social Security is dispensing and will continue to do so until 2017. The surplus is invested in Treasury bonds. That amounts to lending it to the government, "which in turn," Cooper says, "spends it on everything except Social Security."

President Lyndon Johnson, to make the deficit numbers during the Vietnam War less scary, adopted the "unified budget," under which Social Security's surplus was mingled with general revenue, thereby reducing disguising, the deficit's size.
In typical political budgeting sleight of hand this pilfering of the Social Security tax funds to use in the general revenue expenditures, prevents the public from knowing, and Congress from being compelled to act on, facts about the entitlement programs' unfunded liabilities.

The end result will be promises to future beneficiaries that future taxpayers may not be willing to keep.That is because the public will sooner or later realize that the spending that Congress is doing now will be passed on to the younger generation in the form of IOUs!

More Americans should read the 188-page 2008 Financial Report of the United States Government -- the only government document that calculates what deficit and debt numbers would be if the government practiced, as businesses must, accrual accounting.

Under such accounting, future outlays to which beneficiaries are entitled by existing law are acknowledged as expenditures before they are paid. Were the Social Security surplus sequestered for accounting purposes, reflecting the truth that it is already obligated, and were there similar treatment of the other entitlement programs' liabilities, the deficit for the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30 would have been $3 trillion rather than $454.8 billion. The report's numbers show that the true national debt is $56 trillion, not the widely reported $10 trillion.Source: U.S. Govt. reports

The report says that in 25 years the portion of the population 65 and older will increase from 12 percent to 20 percent, while the share of the population that is working and paying taxes will decrease from 60 percent to 55 percent. If Medicare spending continues to grow, as it has for four decades, more than 1 1/2 times as fast as the economy, the big three entitlements, which currently are 44 percent of all federal expenditures (excluding interest costs of the national debt), will be 65 percent by 2030. Under current law, 30 years from now government revenue will cover only half of anticipated expenditures.

For years, many conservatives advocated a "starve the beast" approach to limiting government. They supported any tax cut, of any size, at any time, for any purpose, assuming that, deprived of revenue, government spending would stop growing. But spending continued, and government borrowing encouraged government's growth by making big government cheap: People were given $1 worth of government but were charged less than that, the balance being shifted, through debt, to future generations. In 2003, Republicans fattened the beast with the Medicare prescription drug benefit, which added almost $8 trillion in the present value of benefits scheduled, but unfunded, over the next 75 years.

Meanwhile Senator Carl Levin the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee believes that the present law preventing homosexuals from serving in the military should be overturned. And President Obama agrees in principal, as he said "the only qualification for service should be the willingness(desire) to serve"!It appears the ability to read, write, hear properly, and perform the tasks needed to perform their military duties no longer are important to Liberals like Obama and Levin. Misfits and idiots are welcome into the army that these people believe should defend our liberty?


"Liberalism's signature achievement -- the welfare state's entitlement buffet -- will, unless radically reduced, starve government of resources needed for everything on liberalism's agenda for people not elderly. Conservatives want government limited, but not this way".
Source: George Will

THE FALSE LOGIC OF POLITICIANS AND PUNDITS

I know very little about the qualifications, and strengths of the new Republican National Party Chairman. The fact that he is a Black man impresses me or depresses me not one iota.
What does depress me, and give me pause to think where the Republican party has disappeared to is the fact that it seems important to many people that a Black man lead the RNC.

Wikapedia has this to say about the fifty year old Black man the Republicans have chosen to lead them out of the "dessert"!
"Michael Stephen Steele (born October 19, 1958)is an American elected official and chairman of the Republican National Committee, and is the first African-American to hold the position. Prior to this, Steele served as chairman of GOPAC and worked as a partner at the law firm of Dewey & LeBoeuf. He also served as Lieutenant Governor of Maryland from 2003 to 2007.

Steele was the first African American to serve in a Maryland state-wide office and the first Republican lieutenant governor in the state. From 2003 to 2005, Steele and Lt. Gov. Jennette Bradley of Ohio were the highest-ranking elected African American Republicans in the United States.

His election resulted from his defeating five other candidates according to the Votmaster.com.
"Originally six people were competing for the job of RNC chairman, but one by one they dropped out. Chip "Barack the Magic Negro" Saltsman bit the dust Thursday. Then current chairman Mike Duncan quit after the third round when it became clear that he was dropping. Ken Blackwell (who is also black), dropped out next. Blackwell urged his supporters to vote for the other black candidate, Steele, with whom he has major ideological differences, rather than the white candidate, Katon Dawson, with whom he sees eye to eye on most issues. After the fifth ballot, Saul Anuzis tossed in the towel but did not endorse either of the remaining candidates, At that point the Republican state leaders had a choice between a very conservative white southerner, Katon Dawson, who only recently quit a whites-only club, and a conservative black man from Maryland. Probably many RNC members realized that if they picked Dawson, the headlines the next day would read: "Republicans Choose Racist over African American." They went with Steele, even though many of them think he is not conservative enough. Once again affirmative action raises it's ugly head!

The RNC could have considered the demographics of Obama's election if they really want a person that is in a group that helped elect Obama over McCain. Exit poles showed that 66% of those voters aged 18 to 29 voted for Obama, and only 32% of that generation voted for McCain. Rather than concentrate on race. Republicans must find a way to show the young voters that their future will be brighter if Republicans run a smaller government, not a mega-govt. like the Democrats propose, and all the baggage that comes with it. Devaluation of the dollar, hyper inflation and a possible severe Recession during their future years.

Continiuing to use Race as a tool in politics should be over now that a Black man sits in the Oval Office.
Predictably, the Press is full of quotes by pundits and there are talking heads on the television, making comments about why this man was picked. Too many feel it was because he is Black! I would hope that the Republican party has become color blind in the area of selection of whom they choose to lead their party. If not they are making a big mistake that could cause them to move into the area of extinction.

This quote from a Democrat Congressman is a perfect example of the quirky thinking going on in peoples heads since Obama was elected.
"Clearly Obama’s success contributed to Steele’s victory,” said former Rep. Martin Frost (D-Texas), who served two terms as chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “Had Obama not won, I can’t imagine the Republicans would have elected an African-American chairman.”

"Obama’s historic presidency, the way in which he won and the scale of the crises he inherits have scrambled some of the underlying assumptions about American elections and politics and altered the laws of political logic". Perhaps the fact that Congressman Frost is only the second Jewish man or woman to be elected to Congress from Texas, has influenced his thinking. I would hope that both he and Steele were selected because they were thought by those who put them in the office that they now hold were the best candidates for their particular job, and race or religion had nothing to do with their selection. From what he says it appears not!

Blacks make up approximately 20% of the population in the USA, and when voting in a block as they did for Obama can be a significant influence on the election outcome.Before the election this was said by Jesse Jackson: "I am convinced… that the black vote is going to be not only a bigger vote than ever before, it is the swing vote.” Rev. Jesse Jackson, Sr., speaking on CNN

But to think that appointing a man of color is going to change a group of people who think that "whitey" is the main reason they are kept from succeeding in life. Is pure folly! And it is an insult to the Black man that people think because you chose a Black leader for your party the issues have changed.

The Democrat party has chosen the Socialist way to govern. Cradle to Grave entitlemrnt,and employment of the majority of Americans by the government is the way for the Democrat party.
Republicans used to be for free enterprise, and as little government as was needed to protect us from foreign and domestic enemies, control the money supply and let the States decide how we should live. In plain English, as little government as possible to function and protect the public.

Lately the Republicans have become what I call "RINOS", Republicans in name only, as they tried to spend their way into power along side the Democrats. They were aided by president Bush, who failed to veto a spending Bill in the eight years he was in office.

The Republican Party’s immediate prospects for recruiting more black voters to punch a chad or touch a screen on behalf of its candidates seems remote at best these days. This seemingly glacial reality causes no end of dismay and hand wringing on the part of black Republicans. Jack E. White, who is black and writes for Time magazine, has declared that the Democrats “virtual monopoly on the black vote is bad for African Americans… a demeaning form of political serfdom.” One black conservative analyst, La Shawn Barber, recently attributed the sway that Democrats have over black voters to “years of damage caused by liberal ideology and misinformation pumped into the black community for the past 25 years.” Despite this, a super majority of Blacks voted for Obama not because of his Socialist platform, but I believe because he has Black skin.
There are some Conservative Blacks. Thomas Sowell, J.C. Watts and Walter Williams to mention just a few. They realize that the "cradle to grave" programs offered to Black people does not "set them free", but puts them in a state of perpetual bondage to the Democrats.
Lets get back to issues!!